Huang v. Tseng

Huang v. Tseng

The Court held the trial judge did not err: his findings that the defendants lacked a meritorious defence were reasonable given the lack of documentary support, the implausibility of the alleged investment scheme, and the defendant's fax admissions; the appellant failed to show the judge's factual findings were plainly wrong, so the refusal to set aside the default judgment was upheld.

Citation
2001 BCCA 370
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Jen-Hsien Huang; Defendant (appellant): Kuan-Jung Tseng; Defendant (appellant): Chiu-Hua Wang Tseng
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Set Aside Default Judgment / Court of Appeal Oral Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment refusing to set aside default judgment upheld.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Meritorious Defence, Assessment of Affidavit Evidence, Appellate Review of Facts
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Debt Recovery Default Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Meritorious Defence Assessment of Affidavit Evidence Appellate Review of Facts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jen-Hsien Huang

Plaintiff (respondent)

Kuan-Jung Tseng

Defendant (appellant)

Chiu-Hua Wang Tseng

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Set Aside Default Judgment / Court of Appeal Oral Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in finding no meritorious defence under the Miracle Feeds test
  2. 2 Whether the evidence showed the transaction was an investment in a building project or a loan
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge's factual findings were plainly wrong and therefore reviewable on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the trial judge did not err: his findings that the defendants lacked a meritorious defence were reasonable given the lack of documentary support, the implausibility of the alleged investment scheme, and the defendant's fax admissions; the appellant failed to show the judge's factual findings were plainly wrong, so the refusal to set aside the default judgment was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment refusing to set aside default judgment upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Judgment refusing to set aside default judgment upheld